Critique the play of this hand please.

Hello All,


Well I finally got back to playing some cards yesterday after a monh layoff. ( finally moved into the new house although I am nowhere near 'all moved in' )


I jumped into an open seat in a 1-3 stud game while I was waiting to play some Holdem and this hand developed.


Standard 1-3 game with loose pay-offers and only 1 decent player who I will call AG ( for agressive player )


3s opens up for $1 and person next to him with the Js raises the bet to $3. 4 cold callers of the bet to me. ( Jc, 7s, 5c ) I look down to find 10h(10d,Qd). I decide to call with my live pair and live overcard kicker and completely live

2 flusher.


Unfortunetly, AG who is last to act after me re-raises the bet with Kc to $6. Everyone else calls. I decide to call and take off a card with 7 way action.


4th


I catch Qh giving me Qs and 10s. Everyone else catches apparent blanks. ( Very blanks actually which made me happy ) AG with Kc is still high and bets $3. Of course everyone calls to me and I raise to $6. Kc just calls along with everyone else.


5th


I catch 10s giving me 10s full. Everyone else catches apparant blanks. I am now high on board with open 10s. I bet $3. Person with K goes all in for $1 of it. I drop one other player. Leaving me with 4 other opponents for side pot.


6th street


Kc who is all-in catches Kh.. =(.. Everyone else catches more blanks except for another opopenent who has caught a Suited A to his doorcard. My open 10s are still high. I bet $3 All opponents call.


River..


I bet $3 get two callers and my boat is good and I take down a very large pot. ( AG with KK did have 3K but didn't fill )


Questions...


Was I incorrect in calling the raise on 3rd, even though my pot odds and especially implied odds were great?


Was I incorrect in calling the re-raise on 3rd from K. ( I did put him on KK at that point )


Would any of you on 4th NOT have re-raised with my two-pair. ( I realize I was not in position to make that raise. I was really hoping the K would re-raise so I could isolate him )


Thanks for the responses.


Later,


CJ

Dear CJ


You played the hand well. Calling the reraise on 3st is a marginal decision, but you have a hand that do OK multiway. Fold on 4st if no improvement.


JN

The pot is far too large to fold, even on 4th, unless the opposing boards get very scary, or your hand goes totally dead.


I do not like the 4th street raise. Against better opponents, this only exposes your hand. Unless the K is the agressive oppoenent, you will not get reraised by a lone pair of kings.


I would wait for 5th street to really stick it to players hanging on with junk. In this case, you would just bet on 5th, adn everyone draws dead.


Glad it worked out.


Dan Z.

in a 1-3 game with no ante you should give strong consideration to folding unless youknow that teh field can be limited on fourth street. handslike yours frequently turn into "payoff hands." Once it is reraised you should call of course.


On fourth street you may as well just call since all you are doing is making the pot bigger without a chance to knock players out.There is no point to raising here.


Pat

With that loose opposition is better trying to eliminate more players you can.

Majority of players when facing a raise on 4th fold more than when facing a raise on 5th since they feel themselves sticked to that big pot (they can catch on 5th three to a flush or a gutshot to a straight just to give an example).


An early raise with a medium hand defends better your hand .


My poor opinion based on my experiences


Marco

Hello,CJ,

Excellent play!

I probably would not have re-raised,but I think your re-raise is more correct than just calling a raise.

You are not trying to reduce the field in this case,but is betting for value.

I believe that it is more correct to stay in with live under-pairs when a large number of opponents are in the hand than it is to face a big pair heads-up.

I know that you increase your chances of winning when you can dreduce the field and you have two under-pairs,but there is a lot more money in the pot to compensate for your reduced chances of winning--so you do not have to win too often to show a big profit with the strategy of going to the party with a large field in your case.

I believe that it's more important to limp in with two-under pairs if one opponent has an over-pair and the others are on flush and straight graws.

Remember,the enemies of flushes and straights are pairs --so if you fill,you will be rewarded handsomely by your non-aggressiveness.

You played it very well.

You also provided evidence of the hypothesis that playing with two live underpairs against several other players where one has an over-pair,it's better not to reduce the field.

Sure,A straight or flush can come in and beat your two under-pairs where you would have won by just beating an un-improved over-pair,but I think that you will make more money by following the above hypothesis.

I remembered a few years ago I was playing stud with a New England hold'em champion featured in "Cardplayer Magazine"

In this case,it was 3-way action and he played the same type of hand that you had passively against a drawing hand and an over-pair and also took down the pot.


Congratulations on your find play!


Sitting Bull

Hello,Pat,

I would want many players in and with two pairs on 4th, I would bet/raise for value with my live under-pairs.

I do not want to go with a reduced field against an opponent with an over-pair.

Yes,you will lose a lot of pots playing this way ,but when you do take down the pot,it will more than make up for the other pots that you have lost.

I tend to fold early with two under-pairs heads-up against an over-pair in a no-ante game.

Why gamble?


Sitting Bull

Thanks for both of your responses regarding the 4th street raise. Actually the fourth street raise is the 'big' reason I posted this hand.

It was a rather tricky situation created by my position.


I think in some respects both of your answers are correct. I personally did the raise cause I felt that there was a good chance the person with the K ( AG for aggressive player ) would re-raise increasing my chances of winning the pot with my two-pair. Facing 2 more large bets it would be difficult for even those morons at that table I was playing at to call. Unfortunately he didn't do that. I did however know at that time I had the best hand. ( He definately would have re-raised with Kings up )


Pat is correct in the sense that I was in a horrible position to make that raise under 'normal circumstances' ( see my original post ) He is correct that I was 'just making the pot bigger'


I was really shocked as to the stupidity of the other opponents when they called the bet(s) fom fifth street on. Whoever said you couldn't make money at $1-3. I averaged $19.20 an hour that session at $1-3. I never did make it to my holdem game =)

The answer as to why you dont raise is in your response. In that game you just will not eliminate players, and your hand loses a lot of value is there are strong draws out there.


Pat

That is a good point, but it is not clear to me what the best hand is. You certainly have the highest ranking hand at the moment. I guess one of teh factors is that the other players allegedly caught "blanks" on fourth street, but it is hard to believe that there are no other stronghands out there in a family pot that called a reraise on third and a raise on fourth.


My first thought was that building a big pot was not a good thing since you will never be able to knock players out and your hands value depends really on how many draws there are out there. I guess it is close but you still want to knock players out and if you raise with the intention of knocking players out then this is a bad play. If your intent is to build a big pot then this is a different rationale for raising and perhaps can be justified.


Pat

the real problem with qqtt two pair on fourth street is that essentially you must fill up, most of the time, with multi-action, which you will do a little better than 25%, but what happens when someone makes a bigger full...that's when the hand becomes a tragedy, i would seriously consider pitching on 4th st w/o improvement...


otherwise hey, 1-3..why not jam...ya might have an edge and ya can get em back on the free drinks...good post..gl..

you were absolutely correct in calling the raise on 3rd. assuming(big assumption) that you're dealing with a very unimaginative(imaginative doesn't necessarily mean good) player who would only be raising with JJ or better you still have the suited overcard. depending on the player I would very possibly have re-raised him considering all the callers between you two. think about all the times you've seen someone raise the J with a pair of 9s-7s, or when they have JQK(or JTA) rainbow or two suit and are oblivious to how dead their cards are. Now that I think about it, I'm probably peeling another raise off with your cards.


When the King re-raises, however, you probably don't have the best hand. that's okay, you have all the pot odds in the world. MUST call here.


On 4th st. if you have ducks and treys you probably have the best hand. with Qs up you're gold. The jack is no longer a problem, you want to raise to get the K to fold if he doesn't have KK(if it is a pair of kings then a bulldozer won't move him off it). Any re-raise from a suited board is likely to be a flush draw so jam it up with them all you like.


good hand, enjoy a nice meal on that pot.

there's a logical flaw in thinking that both sides(over and under pair) would want to limit the field. somebody has to be getting the best of it when it's heads up and I'm pretty sure it's the over pair. as for just calling on 4th street, that's just bad poker. even if they have odds to draw you have to make them pay for the draw(not give them infinite pot odds). besides, raising takes control of the hand and, coupled with continued betting, will shed a player or two.

how does raising take control of this hand?


Pat

play some low limits, once you throw in a raise the action will be checked to you barring a big hit for someone else(which also gives you info if someone bets into you after you raise). this will be especially good here since the K is the favorite to start each betting round and the K is close on his left. Hence, most of the players will check before he has to act, so if the hand turns sour he'll most likely have everyone check through at least one street for him. doesn't mean some dope won't hit a card to give himself a double gutshot and start firing; but generally speaking raises are done for more reasons than getting people to fold.

i dont dispute that it can be done, but there is no way one raise will "take control" of this particular hand. If there are other reasons to raise here then you should do so, as Larry suggested, but there is just not enought chance to take control to make that a reason. Compare this to Mason's hand above and you will get a sense for this, which is a key point if you want to move up in limits.


Pat

What do you think is meant by take control? Do I think everyone is going to fold, no of course not. However, when you show strength by raising it does cause a reaction. People "check to the raiser" as they seem to enjoy saying. If someone hits, or perceives you as missing they may still bet or check raise. Still, there is change in the complexion of the game when you raise. This isn't the main reason for the raise though. You have the best hand right now but not one good enough to slowplay(changes on the next 10), you have to make the odds as bad as possible for those deciding to call and draw against you. It might still be correct for them to call but you still need to bet to reduce their odds. Just calling because draws aren't going to laydown shows lack of understanding.

nm